From what I can tell Vasko Kohlmayer is an American naturalized citizen from Russia who writes a column called "Higher Things" on Christian topics in the Washington Times - the paper owned by Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon. His byline says he's writing from Moscow.
From the start, the truth is looking pretty weak here. The Washington Times is known for a euphemism called "Prudenizing", a dishonest writing practice. Why would a good Christian want to associate themselves with an organization known for dishonesty?
In his first article, "Atheism versus God: How did the universe begin?", Vasko says the following:
But his statement about what atheists believe needed serious correcting, so I wrote:
In Vasko's original article, he also says:
I hoped he would learn from this. Instead, he needed to protect himself, and to do so he needed a strawman to attack.
He chose to build that strawman out of my words.
In his next article, "Atheist, there is no such thing", Vasko said that he argued for a "transcendent cause – God – which brought the universe into being", and that his "exasperated" "unbelieving readers" "had to plead ignorance when it comes to the universe's origin. Yes, we were "exasperated", because pleading ignorance is honest, while asserting something that you cannot know to be true is inherently dishonest.
And here is what Vasko said about me:
But no one argues that this is true because these positions lack evidence. The lack of evidence is not a reason to start asserting that your particular favorite flavor of God exists. In fact, we can argue these positions without the need for a God. We could argue that Markovians created the Universe. Or we could argue that a natural process that we currently don't know about or understand created the Universe. If we are wrong about this, we will discover our error during the investigation. This is how science works.
Out of all of these positions, only one invites further scientific inquiry. The rest all give a "just so" answer that stifles inquiry. In other words, only one answer is open-minded and scientific. Many explanations are "possible" - there are an infinity of "possible" explanations. Instead of investigating them all, science investigates the probable explanations first.
Vasko also quotes one dictionary definition of atheist. Why? I'm not sure, but I have noticed this is a tactic used by many Christians (notably Ray Comfort) in order to "prove" that there is no such thing as an atheist. The definition given says an atheist is: "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings." Let's break that down a little.
The first part of the definition "someone who denies a supreme being (God)" assumes that a God exists. This definition assumes facts not in evidence, and is somewhat flawed due to that. But by using the word "disbelieve" the definition is redeemed somewhat since the verb usage of "disbelieve" is to "have no belief."
It is true that some atheists beleive that no gods exist. This is a form of "strong atheism". I, on the other hand, merely lack a belief in Gods, because of the overwhelming lack of evidence. By choosing such an easy definition, Vasko has made me into straw man, that he knocks down by saying, "If he wanted to be precise in his use of terminology, Calladus would call himself an agnostic. This term more accurately captures his “I don't know” admission."
This of course, confuses terminology and mixes apples with oranges. Atheism and Agnosticism are two different things. Atheism deals with belief, agnosticism deals with knowledge. If you are are a person who is theistic, you have a belief that a god exists. Someone who is a-theist does not have a belief that a god exists ("a" is the negation of "theism") A person who is gnostic knows that a god exists. Someone who is a-gnostic does not know that a god exists. (again, "a" is a negation).
There is a responsibility for people who claim to be an authority on a subject. A person making such a claim must actually be an authority! By confusing atheism and agnosticism, by taking a lack of evidence as evidence, and by making a straw man out of my words, Vasko has demonstrated that he is in no way familiar with the arguments of atheism. From this position, anything he writes without first understanding the other side of the argument is intellectually dishonest.
When corrected in his mistakes, instead of acknowledging the correction Vasko "doubled down" and compounded his error. This shows him to be uninterested - at best - or idiotically stupid at worst.
And by applying a dictionary definition to me, without ever bothering to ask me what I believe, Vasko has actually lied about what I believe. This is beyond intellectual dishonesty, it shows him to be nothing more than a liar.
But why would a Christian have to lie to make his point?